Patrick Campbell Manyuira v Ann Muthoni Pertet
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a property buyer facing sharply rising prices can block the seller from selling to someone else, even without a formal damages promise.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Adequacy of damages as a bar to interlocutory injunction
Where the agreed price can no longer buy a similar property, damages are not an adequate remedy and irreparable harm is established
The appellant argued that because damages were calculable, the court should treat them as adequate. The court rejected this: the price of the property had risen from Shs.3,500,000 to Shs.5,200,000 within the month of the agreement, so the respondent could not replace the property at the agreed price and would suffer irreparable harm. The first two Giella limbs were satisfied and the judge's discretion was properly exercised.
Undertaking as to damages
Omission of an undertaking in damages is not fatal where a prima facie case exists; the appellate court may supply the undertaking itself
Order 39 rule 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules identifies the undertaking as a requirement a judge may consider, but its omission does not vitiate the injunction. Invoking its own powers under section 3(1) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, the Court of Appeal recorded the respondent's undertaking to pay damages should she ultimately fail.
Legal principles established
#- The three Giella v Cassman Brown principles govern the grant of an interlocutory injunction: prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience only if the court is in doubt
- A party who is not in breach of a sale agreement cannot have the contract cancelled against them; repudiation by the vendor at a higher price supports an injunction restraining alienation
- Failure of the applicant to give an undertaking in damages is not fatal to an interlocutory injunction where a prima facie case is established, and the appellate court may itself record the undertaking under section 3(1) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.The appellant pays the respondent's costs of the appeal
- 3.The respondent's undertaking to pay damages should she eventually not succeed is recorded under section 3(1) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C.C.C. No. 3521 of 1994
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (section 3(1) invoked in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Patrick Campbell Manyuira v Ann Muthoni Pertet", Case Analysis (1996). Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1995. Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.